Malisteen:disabling youtube comments isn't censorship. Not by any meaningful definition of the word. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee the right to speak in someone else's private space.

No meaningful definition of censorship limits it to anti-democratic government-instituted censorship.

Censorship is the ereasal or limitation of communication. If I'm quoting your post, and replacing a word with asterisks, then by most common definitions, I am "censoring" your line. If I'm asterisking out my own words, I am prcticing "self-censorship". When the Escapist is deleting forum posts, they are censoring commenters.

I'm not saying that all these forms of censorship are wrong, they might be necessary, but first of all we need to admit what it is. If you are blocking comments from your youtube page, then you are censoring your youtube page. You are limiting other people's communication. And just because you do it in a way that is within your legal rights, doesn't change that basic fact.

To deny that, just because censorship sounds like such an unpleasant word, is a pointless euphemism.

The New York Times isn't practicing censorship when it chooses not to print a letter sent to it, you aren't practicing censorship when you choose not to forward a chain letter to 10 of your friends, I'm not practicing censorship when I choose not to scream every thought that comes into my head stream of consciousness style while I'm walking down the street, and Anita isn't practicing censorship when she turns off youtube comments on her videos.

A definition of censorship that would apply to those situations is meaninglessly broad. Part of freedom of speech is the freedom to choose what you don't say, what opinions you don't express in your own words or your own publications or spaces.

The New York Times isn't practicing censorship when it chooses not to print a letter sent to it, you aren't practicing censorship when you choose not to forward a chain letter to 10 of your friends, I'm not practicing censorship when I choose not to scream every thought that comes into my head stream of consciousness style while I'm walking down the street, and Anita isn't practicing censorship when she turns off youtube comments on her videos.

One of these is not like the others. Not saing something, is not the same thing as actively stopping something from being said.

Anita isn't just not posting misogynist rants against herself, but categorically bans the posibility of those rants being said by others in a cerain context

A definition of censorship that would apply to those situations is meaninglessly broad. Part of freedom of speech is the freedom to choose what you don't say, what opinions you don't express in your own words or your own publications or spaces.

Censorship is not just a "freedom of speech" issue. Governments that allow freedom of speech, still practice censorship.

While the opposite of "being censored" would be "being able to speak freely", the informal concept of being able to speak freely is not the same thing as the legal concept of "Freedom of Speech", which has it's limits, and these limits are what censorship enforces.

Just as the government can censor obscenity, or hate speech, because that way of speaking freely is not protected by freedom of speech, likewise, individuals and corporations can censor their forums because that isn't protected by Freedom of Speech either.

You imagine that as if it would work like this: North Korea doesn't have Freedom of Sppech, therefore North Korea has censorship. The USA has freedom of speech, therefore the USA can't have censorship. Posting comments is not a Freedom of Spech issue, therefore banning comments can't be censorship.

"Censorship" is not a meaningless word, just because it's not the legal opposite of Freedom of Speech, it's still a useful phrase for all cases of communication being forcefully silenced, with or without violating freedom of speech.

Xisin:The difference for me is moderation. If after watching Jim's first episode, I commented with "Get raped Jim!" I would be banned or at least given a warning. So the next time, I wouldn't be there to add irrelevant comments. Freedom of speech or a lack of censorship doesn't mean a freedom from consequences.

Besides, I always have the right to say something and walk away. Why can't I have that option on youtube? Not even the default setting. Gosh knows I use that setting all the time in League. There was a Zilean 2 days ago pretending to be an Islamic Bomber... I hit the mute option.

It was just a rebuttal restating what had been said in the thread.

My point was that youtube has certain rules. Which allow people to tell you that they are going to "Put on a strap on and screw you in the ass", apparently the Escapist is fine with that to so as long as it's between "" :D

The Escapist has a different code of conduct. They are both forums owned by businesses, they are not public areas so yes they are allowed to refuse users based on certain things.

But that is also the difference between blocking/filtering comments and following a set of rules to use the service provided by the company. Youtube has no such moderation, therefore using the services of youtube should go along with the expectation of getting allot of crap.

If you don't want to hear it you can switch off notifications. Your video could be BOMBED with rape threats, peanut butter innuendo's and whatever else and you would be none the wiser. However that is the again the difference between the mute button and kicking someone from the server. People seem to defend disabling comments when at the same time if they don't want to hear them, they could just flick on the no notifications switch. You don't have to deal with the shit and people are still able to spew the shit. Everybody wins!

Entitled:Anita isn't just not posting misogynist rants against herself, but categorically bans the posibility of those rants being said by others in a cerain context

When that context is 'in my space that I have implicitly endorsed by making available and that I must subject anyone to by linking to my video' no, that situation isn't any different from the others I mentioned. The comments section of Anita's videos is Anita's space, and if she doesn't want to make it available to you, that's her business.

You are responsible for your own speech, but when you publish someone else's speech, you're taking responsibility for it, too. You are effectively re-saying what they say by broadcasting it. Speech in youtube comments is the responsibility of the speaker, but also of those who chose to give them that platform in the first place - both youtube itself and the video poster in whose comment section the speech is taking place, in exactly the same way as a newspaper still shares responsibility for the speech within letters that they choose to publish. It doesn't matter what the 'default' settings are. Checking a 'don't allow comments' box when comments are the default is no different from not checking the 'allow comments' box when they aren't, and its no different from simply choosing not to go out of your way to set up a commentary method when one isn't built in.

Where individual moderation is unfeasible - as is often the case on the internet - the options are either to make space available or not, but neither choice constitutes censorship, because there is no reasonable obligation for that particular space to be open in the first place. Censorship is restrictions on speech imposed by an outside force, but while you're in Anita's space you're the outsider, not her. Nothing she can do in her own space is censorship, even choosing to block only the posts that disagree with her, because that's her space and her speech as much as it's the speech of those allowed to comment.

There's this assumption in the internet generation that everyone is entitled not only to say anything they want, but to say it any where they want, including other people's private spaces, and that other people are obligated to make their spaces available to you. And that's just ridiculous. As mentioned earlier in the thread, "preventing you from shitting on my lawn isn't policing your toilet."

Censorship is restrictions on speech imposed by an outside force but while you're in Anita's space you're the outsider, not her.

That's both a spectacular case of moving the goalposts, and one that is ridiculously incompatible with the common usage of the word "censorship".

The problem is, that you are basically argue about semantics. You agree with the comic that youtube commets should be censored, and I agree with you about that, so all that you personally have contributed to this discussion is a terminology debate about whether we should call that "censorship", or make a new euphemism for it and limit the phrase censorship towhat is now known as "freedom of speech violating government censorship". So I guess the "bleep censor" that many TV programs use is actually misnamed since it's done by the programs' own self-censorship, and in fact, the concept of self-censorship itself is a contradiction.

Now let's start citing dictionaries, and debate about descriptive vs. prescriptive linguistics, as if this discussion wasn't pointless enough until now.

I've completely stopped reading IGN article comments. It's just too terrible.YouTube is...well I stick to channels where the viewers aren't usually huge crapheads. Yahoo is hilarious when it's the sarcastic cynics making jokes, but even then...

In general I avoid these 'debates' on the Interwebz. Of course being in a university where people are always arguing stuff, I just don't like it in general haha...but hey anyone who wants to debate on campus should do it in person and within punching range. >:/

I see nobody has managed to answer my question yet lol, so I'll ask again:

I see why Anita turned off comments, she wanted to avoid a huge sea of trolls and hurtful comments.

But then why did she turn off ratings?? EXPLAIN THAT.

There is no room for trolls or hurtful comments in ratings, you will only get an idea of how many people agree or disagree - nothing more. So there is no excuse (but please, do explain if you can come up with one).

As I said before, Anita is well-known for only speaking/presenting (or "preaching" as I prefer to call it) in events where feedback or debate isn't allowed. She does this with almost all her content to avoid getting criticism and I'm sick of people defending her bullshit. Her MESSAGE may not be bullshit, but her her PRACTICES certainly are bullshit.

Stop defending her poor practices Cory Rydell and Grey Carter (assuming both of you are responsible for this comic). Maybe I don't feel like uploading a whole fucking video because Anita's work is just not WORTH that much time/effort! Maybe I just want to drop in a rating after I've watched it. Writing some random article somewhere or posting in random forums doesn't have anywhere near the same amount of impact as leaving some form of feedback (if not comments then at least RATINGS) on the video itself.

I heartily disagree with the message in this comic and recommend the editors at least think for a minute before they post stuff like this. I'm not against opinions and stances, but I am against irrational opinions and teaspoon-narrow perspectives - especially coming from the more influential people on sites like these.

I'm a regular youtube commenter who has always tried to engage in honest and constructive debate. I've had many wonderful conversations over the years and I've learned a lot from talking to people there. But all I hear from people like you is how bad things are, how not worthwhile the discourse. The truth is that it's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. It's just a sad excuse to stifle criticism. Anita Sarkeesian is not the first one to use that tactic, and she won't be the last.

I don't know see the issue as so much "obligations" as just being a good sport. Yea, you get the nasty comments but it comes with the territory. Gamers are a nasty bunch as a whole, we all know that, but it's some unwritten internet rule people have adopted where if you put yourself out there to say something, you put yourself out there for all responses. Unfortunately, there's a lot of shit mixed in with the non-offensive replies.

However, in the case of Anita Sarkeesian, she disabled comments on all videos, except for when her kickstarter was nearing the end of its run, THEN she enabled comments for her kickstarter video, getting all the trolls to do their thing and posting the results on feminist blogs.

Bam! Over $100K in the bank and interviews on TV to promote herself. From then on she hasn't enabled comments. She knew what she was doing. She knew she could rile up the gamer trolls and exploit the feminist community for money and exposure through victimhood. She's a good marketer, and a little underhanded in how she does things.

If you can't take the heat, fair enough disable the comments. But who hasn't had "death threats" from kids who want so sound hard on the internet?

What's wrong with this situation is disabling the ratings. This obviously shows a lack of confidence in the validity of her work. Not everyone wants to send her hate mail, there are people who just think she is plain wrong and want to click a thumbs down to show their opinion.

Really, it baffles me how much people are confusing supporting Anita for taking deranged amounts of bullshit and plain becoming white knights of her.

Her work has been decent, yet sketchy, I agree with some of her points (how Lego has changed it's publicity strategy for boys and girls) but at other times it seems she is looking for ghosts over her shoulders. She has her points, but tends to take it to the extreme. As for her tropes vs women, the first episode is pretty crap considering how much she is supposedly representing the female gamer with it and how base all her comments are (yes, there are a lot of games that use the trope, now tell me something I don't know), I mean, not going into the big fat elephant in the room known as Japanese culture and how their games are plagued with these tropes is pretty damn huge.

Anyway, thing is, yes, she got harassed and still gets harassed, it's horrible, deplorable and the people doing it are pathetic excuses of existence that should get their heads out of their asses and learn how to express themselves. That on the other hand does not make Anita be right on what she says and posts and doesn't stop her being a coward to a degree for avoiding critical debate,because all I've seen from her is usually purely onesided discussion and I'm also in the camp that find it amusing that the only time she has allowed comments on her youtube videos was during a short time during her kickstarter when it seemed like it was going top flop hard.

Basically, yes, she deserves support in the sense that she was a person that received surreal amounts of attacks from a bunch of bigots, that does not mean she is immune to critical analysis because people were assholes to her. She is very much susceptible to critic and if she doesn't pick her shit up, she will become an utter waste of time for all involved and will leave those people that supported her wondering why they even bothered, because yes, there is a lot of stupid shit against women in the medium, but if her form of tackling the problem is what we have seen at the moment, then she'll lose relevance in a heartbeat and will only be preaching to the choir.

Anyway, stop being bloody white knights, it only makes her become a "damsel in distress" and undervalues the strength of women everywhere with the whole "I HAS TO PROTECT" skit, I already watch enough anime and manga already to have to see it everywhere else.

If you don't show your face and take a few for the team, well frankly, what the hell are you doing representing a demographic? Problems are solved by confronting them, not by hiding from them, simple as that.

Also, an amusing video I found, a bit rambly but with some nice content

Razhem:Anyway, thing is, yes, she got harassed and still gets harassed, it's horrible, deplorable and the people doing it are pathetic excuses of existence that should get their heads out of their asses and learn how to express themselves.

Basically, yes, she deserves support in the sense that she was a person that received surreal amounts of attacks from a bunch of bigots...

etc etc

Just to point out something, Anita isn't the only big name out there who is getting "harassed" the shit out of and receiving "surreal" attacks. As far as I know fuck-all has happened in real life, these "attacks" people speak of is nothing more than cyber drivel. There are countless big names who get death threats (along with rape threats if they're female) on a daily basis on the internet. For anyone who is ready to deal with it, it is of zero concern. It's literally part of being a celebrity or well-known name, especially on the internet where anyone can say anything without consequence.

So if you're going to prod a sleeping lioness (that's basically what Anita is doing here), you're going to get a reaction. A violent one.

Anita is no unique snowflake, reactions to her stuff are nothing special and nothing worth mentioning - it's just that she used that reaction very well, making big presentations out of it and glorifying the reactions. That's why you're using words like "surreal amounts of attacks!" - because Anita made COMPILATIONS of screenshots of said attacks (who the fuck goes through comments taking screenshots??) and presented it to the media as a "help me, I'm being victimized by people on the internet!". She also did talk-show style interviews where she wept about receiving hurtful comments (from the fucking internet may I remind you), which sealed the deal.

Razhem:Anyway, thing is, yes, she got harassed and still gets harassed, it's horrible, deplorable and the people doing it are pathetic excuses of existence that should get their heads out of their asses and learn how to express themselves.

Basically, yes, she deserves support in the sense that she was a person that received surreal amounts of attacks from a bunch of bigots...

etc etc

Just to point out something, Anita isn't the only big name out there who is getting "harassed" the shit out of and receiving "surreal" attacks. As far as I know fuck-all has happened in real life, these "attacks" people speak of is nothing more than cyber drivel. There are countless big names who get death threats (along with rape threats if they're female) on a daily basis on the internet. For anyone who is ready to deal with it, it is of zero concern. It's literally part of being a celebrity or well-known name, especially on the internet where anyone can say anything without consequence.

So if you're going to prod a sleeping lioness (that's basically what Anita is doing here), you're going to get a reaction. A violent one.

Anita is no unique snowflake, reactions to her stuff are nothing special and nothing worth mentioning - it's just that she used that reaction very well, making big presentations out of it and glorifying the reactions. That's why you're using words like "surreal amounts of attacks!" - because Anita presented these comments to the media, made COMPILATIONS of screenshots of said attacks (who the fuck goes through comments taking screenshots??) and presented it to the media as a "help me, I'm being victimized by people on the internet!" plea.

That's all the media needed really, a cyber damsel in cyber distress.

BAM.

Oh, of course she manipulated everything to further her desires, but the truth is that a lot of jackasses gave her that material to be able to manipulate with. Basically, yeah, she's playing the damsel card a lot (Seems that every time she does a talk, she plays the harassment card to get pity points) but that does not change that she has suffered real harassment. Yes, it may be only of a verbal kind and yes, most people that re remotely famous have to deal with this shit constantly too, that still does not invalidate it being deplorable and needing to be something people should be made aware and told down about. Of course like I stated before, there is a big difference between that and her not being full of it.

You know there is a reason I asked my main question in BOLD right? You didn't answer it in the slightest, you're just telling me the same thing everyone else in this thread is chanting - why she disabled comments. I KNOW why she disabled comments.

I'm not talking about comments, I'm talking about ratings. There is no room for trolling or hurtful comments in a rating - only an indicator of how people feel about the video.

If every time I posted something relevant to my interests on youtube, an army of spiteful twits invariably materialised, well I'd probably disable feedback as well. In all forms.

Sorry if that was buried in there.

My justification for removing the votes would be the same as for removing comments; if a bunch of people were bound/destined/compelled to come onto my video and downvote it regardless of its actual quality, just because they hate me or my message, I would probably take the arguably cowardly way out and just disallow them from doing it.

There's a point where criticism becomes more akin to vandalism.

And besides. Lots of people will downvote Anita's work regardless of its quality. I'm not a huge fan of her work either, so I generally just ignore her. But plenty of people will go onto her youtube page and downvote everything for various silly reasons.

And at that point, the rating system becomes meaningless anyway, does it not? The rating system no longer measures quality, or the reasonableness of the video, or the intelligence behind it, because it's muddled by people acting in this way. So not only does the rating system become a bit pointless, it just becomes depressing for the author.

Because again, instead of criticism or anything meaningful, it just tends to become vandalism. So nothing is lost anyway.

1) People hate Anita because of her message2) People hate hate the message because of Anita

Both seem equally valid reasons and accurately define "feedback" as far as I'm concerned. I mean there is a reason someone would come to Anita's video JUST to click the dislike button, Anita in general has pissed them off - what else could drive a person to do that? As an overall picture, you're still getting an idea of the PROPORTION of people who disagree/hate her compared to the people who agree/like her. And that proportion would be enough proof to give everyone visiting that video a general idea of what others things of Anita's message, without the need of a single comment.

I would also file troll comments under "feedback" (there is a REASON for trolling, always) but since Anita would simply make another compilation of those comments and sob even harder in the name of victimization, I guess we're all better for it.But she can't do the same thing with ratings, trying to say "people dislike my video because they hate me and want to rape/victimize me!" would simply hold no water. See where I'm getting?

Eh, in the end I'm in the same boat as you - not overly concerned. And thank heavens the game industry isn't concerned either, only a handful of petty videogame journalists having slow news days :D

1) People hate Anita because of her message2) People hate hate the message because of Anita

Both seem equally valid reasons and accurately define "feedback" as far as I'm concerned. I mean there is a reason someone would come to Anita's video JUST to click the dislike button, Anita in general has pissed them off - what else could drive a person to do that? As an overall picture, you're still getting an idea of the PROPORTION of people who disagree/hate her compared to the people who agree/like her. And that proportion would be enough proof to give everyone visiting that video a general idea of what others things of Anita's message, without the need of a single comment.

I would also file troll comments under "feedback" (there is a REASON for trolling, always) but since Anita would simply make another compilation of those comments and sob even harder in the name of victimization, I guess we're all better for it.But she can't do the same thing with ratings, trying to say "people dislike my video because they hate me and want to rape/victimize me!" would simply hold no water. See where I'm getting?

Eh, in the end I'm in the same boat as you - not overly concerned. And thank heavens the game industry isn't concerned either, only a handful of petty videogame journalists having slow news days :D

Listen, I'm not going to presume we're in the same boat. But here we go:

I was raised by video games far more than human friends for the majority of primary/secondary school (ages 5-18). So when people like Anita come onto the scene and start implying that the things that raised me were sexist and misogynistic, well, it's really difficult to have a completely rational, objective response to that.

If someone you didn't know came up and called your parents racist, you'd have a poor reaction, even if they presented a ton of evidence. And I don't think Anita has emphasised fully with that side of her audience. I watched a few of her videos, and she just seemed to present her arguments (even if they were probably reasonable) in a way that made me feel bad for liking video games. Even if that wasn't her intention. When you're trying to convince me to take your side in a debate, that's not a great place to start.

But that's an emotional reaction. And I'd like to think I'm someone who can recognise that and either ignore it, or at least just pout to myself about it in the corner. But clearly there are people that can't do that, and will just either downvote out of spite, or I guess threaten to rape her.

Off topic ranting aside, people are going to have emotional reactions to content like Anita's. If she doesn't want a whole bunch of emotional shit flung at her (some more eloquent than others) then she can disable it if she wants. She still has a twitter feed, and there are still places like the escapist where we can discuss it and gauge the community reaction.

Although you're exactly right, there's always a *reason* for trolling. That doesn't necessarily make it helpful. Perhaps you think that emotional hate mail/hate downvoting is useful feedback for either the viewers or the content creator, but I don't think so.

You've already pointed out that Anita has a tendency to use negative feedback to further her cause anyway. So she clearly doesn't give a dingy dang what kind of feedback she receives; she seems to be set in her ways as to how she presents her videos.

But you might be right. There's a place for this stuff, certainly. But if Anita, or anyone, doesn't want it next to their video, then I can't really bring myself to demand it to be there.

Holy goosefucks, I am seeing the words "peer review," "critical analysis" and "YouTube comments" in the same sentence. What planet is this?

Note: People don't seem to understand what a peer review actually is. A peer review is a critical analysis of a given piece of work by someone with relevant experience in the discussed field. You cannot have an anonymous peer review. So unless "DanteUnleashed007" is actually the name on your doctorate, you are not taking part in a peer review.

My god, why would people want to NOT be insulted? What madness is this!

Because they're thin skinned.

Even if there is a SINGLE constructive comment among 10 million insults, cutting off the comments is still silencing that opinion because you can't deal with people typing mean things.

Occasionally, I need to use a public restroom.

Am I obligated to lie on my back on the floor with my mouth open and let people shit down my throat on the offchance that someone might drop a piece of candy one time out of a million?

That may just be the worst analogy I have ever seen in my entire human existence.

Mean text is in no way analogues to literally eating shit. If random assholes typing bad things is really that painful for you, you probably shouldn't be on the internet.That "piece of candy" isn't for you. It's for people who want to read a meaningful opinion.No one is making you read those comments.Silencing those comments makes it appear you have a lack of confidence regardless.

Grey Carter:Holy goosefucks, I am seeing the words "peer review," "critical analysis" and "YouTube comments" in the same sentence. What planet is this?

THe Planet Surrealiea. Welcome. Pink Top Hats are at the door.

Now, to the point of the matter; the bullshit about "Free speech! Censorship!" Is as always in these cases, just an excuse for small cowards to hide behind an anonymous nickname and write "Lo, die whore." "Get raped" "Lol, do the dishes."Don't try to wave some shit about "Intellectual debate!" in my face here. This is youtube, the gathering place of all things stupid and the chance for a post being of any value in a video is about as non-existent as the chances I find gold if I dig in my back yard.

And, as previously been stated: If you can't discuss Sarkeesians goddamned videos...WHAT THE FLYING HELL ARE WE DOING RIGHT GODDAMN NOW?!*coughs*My two cents.

Sorry Gary, but you're dead wrong about this. Even if what she does technically qualify as censorship, its incredibly intellectually dishonest and pretty much an admission that she, her videos and her opinions are utter bull and she is attempting to shield herself from ANY form of dissent and deny others the ability to easily disprove or argue against her on open ground.

And your "suggestions" don't any water either. Take me for example; I have no video recording abilities period, no article publishing websites with any sort of following to which a question might be answered or be used by someone else to meaningfully deconstruct her argument.

The reasoning of "its Youtube" is also bull. Anyone who has gone to college/university, particularly if you studied a more research-orientated field knows that you do not simply prevent commentary or limit conversation because of "undesirables" - the entire world is essentially "undesirable" when talking about academic matters, but you don't hide from them; you take it on the chin for the cause you're promoting.

And that is all besides the point; we all know the real reasons she blocked comments - because people know she is a fraud and full of BS and she doesn't want to be called out on it.

Because it is fairly obvious what would happen. The gazillions of trolls and arseholes who have targeted Anita, and devoted their time and efforts to damage her and her project, would simply downvote her video into oblivion. Reasonable person who are not familiar with Sarkeesian and who happen to stumble across the video, will immediately see the massive amount of downvotes, assume the video must be shit, and quit the video before Anita has even finished her introduction. So yes, the voting system can be abused as much as the comment section, and can be easily used to damage further reception of her video.

Because it is fairly obvious what would happen. The gazillions of trolls and arseholes who have targeted Anita, and devoted their time and efforts to damage her and her project, would simply downvote her video into oblivion. Reasonable person who are not familiar with Sarkeesian and who happen to stumble across the video, will immediately see the massive amount of downvotes, assume the video must be shit, and quit the video before Anita has even finished her introduction. So yes, the voting system can be abused as much as the comment section, and can be easily used to damage further reception of her video.

Firstly, I thought we had universally agreed that Anita's videos getting fewer views was a GOOD thing...

Secondly, in all her Tropes vs Women introduction videos (brief summaries of all the tropes), I clearly recall only ~50-60% of the votes being dislikes across all videos. This was before she disabled ratings and comments on almost every video in her entire channel, but I remember the proportions.

So your "downvoted into oblivion by determined trolls" is exaggerating things a lot, 50-60% dislikes isn't all that terrible. Just a hint that the video(s) may contain a lot of biased one-sided bullshit and/or twisted cherry-picked "research" filtered through a narrow black & white perspective...which is fairly accurate if you think about it!

I can tell you this - almost every Youtube video that has a solid sample-size of views (say, at least 10k+) has a corresponding rating that neatly encapsulates the quality of the video's content and/or people's general agreement/disagreement. That pretty much DEFINES what a rating is supposed to do.I can see the issue with "comment trolls" but you're seriously exaggerating the "rating trolls", rating continues to be a fairly accurate indicator.

Grey Carter:Holy goosefucks, I am seeing the words "peer review," "critical analysis" and "YouTube comments" in the same sentence. What planet is this?

Note: People don't seem to understand what a peer review actually is. A peer review is a critical analysis of a given piece of work by someone with relevant experience in the discussed field. You cannot have an anonymous peer review. So unless "DanteUnleashed007" is actually the name on your doctorate, you are not taking part in a peer review.

Actually you can have anonymous peer review, but you need a third party to mediate it and verify qualifications.

I don't know how you peer review social and political thought but I am sure if you show the numbers in Anita's thesis to a statistician they will probably cry.

Grey Carter:Holy goosefucks, I am seeing the words "peer review," "critical analysis" and "YouTube comments" in the same sentence. What planet is this?

Note: People don't seem to understand what a peer review actually is. A peer review is a critical analysis of a given piece of work by someone with relevant experience in the discussed field. You cannot have an anonymous peer review. So unless "DanteUnleashed007" is actually the name on your doctorate, you are not taking part in a peer review.

You seems to have a slightly flawed vision of what "peer" means. Anita doesn't have a docroate so saying only docorates can review her is false. She callers herself a gamer. So gamers ARE her peers.

And lastly. She didn't post this video in a blog, private site or even posted it in anything college related, so when you choose youtube as your pundit to soapbox from then you have chosen your peer group and all that goes with it.

Even if what she does technically qualify as censorship, its incredibly intellectually dishonest

This term does not mean what you think it means.

and pretty much an admission that she, her videos and her opinions are utter bull

Citation very much required. And even if blocking YouTube comments does limit the debate, you're falling prey to this.

and she is attempting to shield herself from ANY form of dissent and deny others the ability to easily disprove or argue against her on open ground.

I must have missed the part where Sarkeesian shut down the entire internet, thus preventing anyone from arguing against her. No... wait, there's dozens of response videos, each with thousands of hits.

And your "suggestions" don't any water either. Take me for example; I have no video recording abilities period,

If this is legitimately the case, then congratulations on your ability to access the internet via a potato. You obviously have a computer. You can pick up a microphone for like $2 at a dollar store. That's all you need.

no article publishing websites with any sort of following to which a question might be answered or be used by someone else to meaningfully deconstruct her argument.

Here's the thing a lot of people seem to miss. You are not owed any sort of following. You are not owed an "equal say." You only have as much credibility and klout as you bring to the table. The great thing about the internet is that it provides plenty of venues for actual debates, and you can go from nobody to a respected critical voice entirely under your own power. Don't like Sarkeesian's work? Write a blog post, there's hundreds of thousands of people who want to read that stuff.

The reasoning of "its Youtube" is also bull. Anyone who has gone to college/university, particularly if you studied a more research-orientated field knows that you do not simply prevent commentary or limit conversation

Youtube. Comentary and conversation. Pick one. Anyone who has gone to college/university will tell you that a barely moderated, poorly laid out comments system with a 500 character limit is a terrible forum for any kind of discussion. Pass this message on to at least three of your friends and you'll meet the love of your life. Also, first.

because of "undesirables" - the entire world is essentially "undesirable" when talking about academic matters, but you don't hide from them; you take it on the chin for the cause you're promoting.

And that is all besides the point; we all know the real reasons she blocked comments - because people know she is a fraud and full of BS and she doesn't want to be called out on it.

Xanex:You seems to have a slightly flawed vision of what "peer" means. Anita doesn't have a docroate so saying only docorates can review her is false. She callers herself a gamer. So gamers ARE her peers.

And lastly. She didn't post this video in a blog, private site or even posted it in anything college related, so when you choose youtube as your pundit to soapbox from then you have chosen your peer group and all that goes with it.

You're missing the point there; deliberately I expect. Peer reviews require people from the same field with a reputation to uphold. Anyone hiding behind anonymity can't take part in a peer review because their credentials can't be confirmed and they've no reason to remain professional and detached. The doctorate part was me jokingly pointing that out.

Second. Delivery method does not designate a peer group. There are debates about brain surgery on YouTube, does that make us all fit to discuss the ins and outs of brain surgery?

You're missing the point there; deliberately I expect. Peer reviews require people from the same field with a reputation to uphold.

So only people who make shitty youtube videos are qualified to comment on her videos is what you are saying? Or is it women? Or women and white knights? Or what is her peer group that is allowed to be peer review her videos?